This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Tom Tomlinson, PhD
Michigan State University East Lansing

Diane Czlonka, RN, MS
Sinai Hospital of Detroit Detroit, Mich

JAMA. 1995;274(4):299.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The article by Dr Curtis and colleagues¹ on the use of the medical futility rationale for do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders and the accompanying Editorial by Ms Alpers and Dr Lo² offer fewer reasons for concern about the use of futility than they suppose.

First of all, the analysis by Curtis and colleagues on the use of quantitative futility is contaminated by the fact that of the 75 patients whose DNAR orders were in part supported by an appeal to quantitative futility, 45 (60%) also involved appeals to qualitative futility, and the great majority were in part determined by patient or family choice as well. Thus, the finding that a third of the patients to whom quantitative futility was applied were given probabilities of survival to discharge of greater than 5% tells us nothing about what likelihood of survival the residents thought would warrant a DNAR order . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?